Ignore the Movies: ‘Romantic’ Gestures Are Creepy

Contrary to what the movies say, women don’t want romance—at least not straight away.

I’ll often groan when a movie uses a sweeping romantic gesture to nudge the plot along to its natural conclusion. The guy does something wildly over-the-top and ludicrously romantic to win over the girl’s heart and, consequently, our two always-outta-luck characters get together. The next and final scene shows them as happy as an eHarmony ad: they’re playing ball on a deserted beach with a friendly looking Golden Retriever, or walking down the aisle as confetti’s thrown on them by less attractive-looking friends (the comic relief).

The subliminal message here is: do something crazily romantic and you’ll seal the deal. According to these movies the bigger the gesture, the better! The more insane the gesture, the more lovable you are! The shorter the amount of time you’ve known her, the more romantic!


In Love Actually, Colin Firth catches his girlfriend in bed with his brother. He flies to France and quickly falls for a Portuguese housekeeper. Neither of them speaks the other’s native tongue (although they do share a thrilling moment of saving typewritten pages from blowing into a lake), so their first conversation is when he arrives unannounced in her hometown with a rudimentary grasp of Portuguese. Rather than covering some getting-to-know-you basics (“So you’re a housekeeper … did you have to go to college for that?”), he goes in for The Big Proposal. Beautiful, right?

“Love Actually” (2003)

Not really.

Let’s rewind to the moment when Colin finds his girlfriend in bed with his brother. His speedy proposal to someone else shrieks rebound in neon flashing lights.

I don’t think men are lining up to watch Love Actually or other romantic movies with similarly bizarre moments (you can strike The Notebook from your Netflix queue as well), but perhaps through a process of detached osmosis (e.g., it was playing in the background as you helped Mom carve the turkey, or an ex knew all the lines by heart and quoted them at inappropriate moments, etc.), men may have picked up on the misleading message embedded in these movies: that women want romance—lots of it, and the sooner the better.


A couple of years ago I found myself embroiled in an intense relationship by the middle of our second date. He complimented my outfit, my hair, my smile, and the softness of my skin. I shifted uneasily. Did I not like compliments, he asked? I explained it was too much too soon, that it felt like he was falling in love. His response was an unequivocal: “But I am falling in love with you”—met by stunned silence. The following week he asked me to meet his mother. I panicked and said no. Unsurprisingly our relationship never reached the one-month mark.

Another time I was standing on a train platform with a friend when it began to rain. I didn’t have an umbrella so we shared his. Huddled beneath it, waiting for the train, we talked and drew closer and closer until we were kissing. The next day the receptionist called to say a man had stopped by the office with an umbrella for me. It was lovely, very old-fashioned, very Brief Encounter (without the affair part). I wanted to adore the gesture, but combined with a frenzy of excited emails and texts, it felt intense and I found myself back pedaling.

“Brief Encounter” (1945)

The umbrella part was sweet though, right? So maybe I’m the one with the problem?

I checked with friends and they’ve been through similar experiences. They agree that, early on, signs of devotion aren’t good—they’re off-putting. One friend was enjoying a pleasant second date until the guy declared he just knew they’d get married one day. She laughed it off nervously. Each time they met he continued to mention their pending marriage, until the day she ended it.

Another friend was on a seemingly great first date. They loved the same movies! They had the same sense of humor! But after two hours his enthusiastic crows of agreement felt forced. Everything she said he agreed with. Every joke she cracked was hilarious. She felt he was trying too hard to prove they were instantly compatible.  It had the opposite effect: Man this one’s laying it on thick.


There are two reasons why women don’t swoon instantly when greeted by an overload of ardent feelings or romance.

The first is about balance. There are opposing roles in every relationship; this applies not only to marriage or romantic relationships, but to roommates, siblings, or friends. The roles are fluid and they switch depending on the task in hand, but tend to go like this: one person is more detail-oriented and sensible, they figure out what time the movie starts and which train gets them back into the city in time for brunch with relatives, while the other adopts the role of being more impetuous and fun.

During those first few dates, the same principles apply. If one person comes on too strong too quickly, the other tends to take a step back and slow down. While the boy was busy telling me he loved me on our second date, I was thinking, I’m still figuring out if I even like you—how can I POSSIBLY catch up to the level of feeling you already have for me?? It was a huge amount of pressure. I couldn’t get to where he was fast enough. I couldn’t see the scales balancing out, which meant they never did.

The second reason we don’t like it is plain cynicism. Some people just love to fall in love. The serial monogamist transitions from one relationship to the next. He wants to ignore dates two to twelve and get to that really cozy stage where his friends merge with hers and where he finishes the anecdote she begins and she polishes off the crème brûlée he ordered. It’s what my friend sensed on her first date. And while it’s lovely that he likes to be tactile and couple-y and include his new girlfriend in everything, often it transpires that he loves having a partner, rather than loves his specific partner.

Women sense when they’re filling the gaping void left in a man’s life by his ex-girlfriend or ex-fiancée or ex-wife. It’s what Colin Firth was attempting with his microwave speed proposal. It’s not us you’re falling for when we’ve only been on one or two dates. It’s the idea of us. And that leaves us feeling cold.


Don’t get me wrong, women love romantic and considerate and kind. We’ll choose these qualities over a Neanderthal any day. But we want it when there’s a genuine connection. Timing is everything and if you’re saying those three little words within a handful of dates then it’s not romantic. It’s creepy.

So is it too much to ask that during our first few weeks we sweep romance to one side and simply act like two people who are enjoying their first few weeks of dating? In that initial period we’re not cute or compatible or in love or perfect for each other. We’re just figuring it out. And there’s no rush.


Read more on Sex & Relationships.

Image credit: yoga – photowork / Flickr

About Hannah Sloane

Hannah Sloane moved to New York five years ago from England. She's currently working on her first novel and her writing has been published or is forthcoming in: Defenestration, Freerange Nonfiction, Monkeybicycle, Mr Beller's Neighborhood, Nerve, The Big Jewel, The Gloss, Unreality House and WhiskeyPaper. You can follow her: @hansloane


  1. Junaid Noori says:

    And why exactly should I get advice from a white woman in her 20s whose understanding of love comes from cheap romantic comedies?

  2. I don’t know. There are a lot of opinions that remain unsaid for a reason – that they are irrelevant.

    Relevance must be established first: frequency, impact etc

    Pigeons look at me cross-eyed when I cross their path in the downtown core. I think they mistake me for a burrito till they note my Iphone.

  3. @Jules: I think someone needs to recognize an opinion when they see one. There will never be one rule for everyone when it comes to dating. I think the author was just trying to put across a viewpoint that we rarely hear and one that some men definitely need to hear!

    • @Kate…

      “I think the author was just trying to put across a viewpoint that we rarely hear and one that some men definitely need to hear!”

      We rarely hear it because it rarely happens! That’s my point. Why not deal with say an issue Shawn Peters highlighted above, such as the “Swingers” incident with Mike calling the woman right away.

      If only 1% or 10% of men are over the top with their “romantic” overtures, so what?

  4. Shawn Peters says:

    I think examining the schism between how impulsive male romanticism is portrayed in media versus how it is received in real life is worth doing for one big reason.

    Men, on the whole, don’t talk with each other enough about when and how they should reveal their honest feelings for a woman. It’s not an easy chat. It doesn’t just “come up.”

    So movies (and TV and commercials) become a source of inspiration… and even expectation.

    I’m 41 and met my wife at age 19, so I’ve been out of this game since Cusack was a pup, but I’m guilty of having stood in a driveway with a boombox overhead. However, it was my high-school girlfriend’s driveway, and it produced the desired effect. A year later, a dorm-mate of mine tried that routine with a co-ed he’d hooked up with once at a party, and she shut him down on the spot.

    Timing. Context.

    I enjoyed the article, and had no issue recognizing why it was gender specific. I think we’d all agree most men would recoil if a woman said “But I am falling in love with you” on a second date. (not all… but most) It’s just women aren’t told by movies that such behavior is acceptable, while men are.

    Really, my only issue with this piece was that it didn’t mention the clearest cinematic warning AGAINST impromptu male romanticism: “Swingers.” There is no scene harder to watch than Mike (Jon Favreau) coming home from a night out after being warned by Trent and Sue not to call the girl he met right away. He calls anyway, leaves a message… and calls… and calls again. And eventually, the girl picks up and tells him to never call again.

    That was real. That was a lesson.

  5. @Jimbo..

    I think the issue(s) in a long term relationship is that men often stop the “courting” process. Today, I am sure courting is considered “creepy.” So, I think these women are seeking the romance of a courtship. That is just fine and OK.

    Very few people, men or women, are over the top on first dates, etc. The real issue is what was considered good dating etiquette 30 years ago is now considered “weird” or “creepy.” So, many men don’t do anything. They don’t know what to do since so much is both confused and confusing.

    I wish the author would have focused on reality instead of extreme behavior from a fiction movie. Why not talk about women who think it is weird for a “strange” man to approach them? Or even attempt to have a simple and innocent conversation? Or hold the door?

    • Peter von Maidenberg says:

      Or women who could care less what a man does as long as he ticks the boxes for evolutionary one-night-stand fitness?

  6. I’d like to point out that once you are successfully in a long term relationship it seems like these over the top gestures are now craved by women. Whenever a man hears “you don’t do anything romantic anymore”, it generally means “you haven’t done anything outrageously over the top like the guy did in that movie I just saw and now I feel like you don’t love me”.

  7. wellokaythen says:

    “Don’t get me wrong, women love romantic and considerate and kind. We’ll choose these qualities over a Neanderthal any day. But we want it when there’s a genuine connection.”

    This triggers my new lifetime semantic crusade. Neanderthals were people, too. They were another species of human being. It’s unfair and inaccurate to use “Neanderthal” as a reference to a person who behaves in a way that we call “primitive,” as if evolution always means improvement and sophistication. (There’s evidence that Neanderthal communities used flowers as decoration, so you could actually get flowers from a Neanderthal man.)

    It’s even MORE unfair to use the term exclusively as an insulting metaphor for modern-day men and not women. I’m guessing half of all members of Homo neanderthalensis were female. So, why is this word only used to refer to male Homo sapiens? That’s a highly sexist use of the word, considering that it’s never used to refer to women.

    Using the word “Neandethal” in this way is essentially a racist statement. It’s not much different than saying that women will “choose these qualities over a [wop, spic, negro, ginger, cracker, chink] anyday.”

    • @wellokaythen…

      You are spot on with your commentary.

      Let look at her comment again,

      “Don’t get me wrong, women love romantic and considerate and kind. We’ll choose these qualities over a Neanderthal any day. But we want it when there’s a genuine connection.”

      Reading between the lines, what it is really saying is “women love romantic and considerate and kind” ONLY when there is a “connection.” Again, this really irks the heck out of me. What it really says is: if you are man, do even bother me unless I (the woman) feel a connection or find you attractive. So, this immediately eliminates 80% of all men.

      Why can’t women simply appreciate these intrinsically good qualities of romance, love, and kindness regardless? It does not mean she has to like the guy….

      But, women have become so narrow minded today that they must qualify (connection) everything that is even intrinsically good.

      I wonder if they would say?: Hey, do pull me out of a burning building unless there is a connection.


  8. Thanks for all your comments. They address a valid point: it’s not only men who act this way. Women can be just as eager and over the top, if not worse. I didn’t intend to denigrate men or suggest all men are weird and all women are normal. I would have liked to give examples of women playing it wrong on those early dates as well, however there’s an optimum word count to keep in mind when writing these pieces and I was swayed by the fact this site is geared towards men, so I focused on examples that a male reader would benefit from. But I openly admit women are just as bad.

    What I set out to do was dispel the myth movies make: that women adore sweeping over-the-top romantic gestures. This simply isn’t the case. Many women I know will run for the hills if a man is too full on and certain of his feelings early on, especially if she is still undecided on her feelings for him. I believe there’s a distinct line between showing interest and slipping into “too much too soon” territory. I hoped to clarify this line, my point being that timing is everything. I can only speak from my own experience and that of my friends (all in our late twenties/early thirties) and I understand that one size doesn’t fit all. As such, I appreciate your feedback.

    • @Hannah…

      “(all in our late twenties/early thirties)” AND middle class/upper middle class white women.

      You gave extreme examples. Many women find men “weird and creepy” for lesser behavior. Seriously.

      “my point being that timing is everything”

      Yeah. Whose timing? Let me guess. No I will pass. We all know the answer.


  9. Life Lessons says:

    Some women HATE romcoms because they are full of co-dependent BS. Seriously. Can’t stand them.

  10. Peter von Maidenberg says:

    “Don’t get me wrong, women love romantic and considerate and kind. We’ll choose these qualities over a Neanderthal any day. But we want it when there’s a genuine connection.”

    Reading between the lines – sorry – suggests old Harry Browridge is actually preferable for hot anonymous bonking. Discuss?

  11. Frederick says:

    The line between being aloof and her thinking you’re not interested anymore seems very thin.
    After a decade of dating I still haven’t quite figured out the right balance.

    I second Michael in endorsing 500 Days of Summer. Learned a lot from that film.

  12. Michael Nebab says:

    I make an exception for (500) Days of Summer and Blue Valentine.

  13. JahBless101 says:

    A while back, there was a post on GMP about one black man’s refusal to blog on race for this website. The basic message was that by doing so, he is reinforcing a harmful social construction (race) that we should be trying to break down.

    I find that this article stumbles into that same territory. It creates a gendered problem and acts as a “How-To” for us dumb guys who just don’t get what women want. In reality, this has nothing to do with gender and this article becomes unnecessarily polarizing. I think the first evidence of this dynamic is the fact that the trope of the over-the-top Rom Com gesture as the intertwining thread just falls flat when it comes to her real comparisons. The examples cited do not strike me as being over the top or creepy at all, just over-enthusiastic.

    Secondly, this is NOT unique to men; suggesting so merely makes the audience defensive and argumentative. On a feminist site, I can easily imagine an article written about how damaging the stereotype of the overly-needy-girlfriend. Furthermore, I used to live in NYC, and my experience was the opposite. I once had a woman say “We should get a dog once we’ve been dating for a year” on our 3rd of 4th date. Another recounted her conversations with her parents and friends about me after we first slept together. Lucky for me, they all approved of her new boyfriend based on her limited knowledge of my life.

    TL/DR: Not everything is rooted in gender dynamics and putting too much emphasis on gender is unnecessarily polarizing and counterproductive. It almost always leads to the “who has it worse” argument (exhibit a: the fact that I felt the need to cite two examples of the same behavior by women).

  14. Solid piece, Hannah. We don’t hear this point of view, this poignant discussion on those early dating moments, nearly enough. These flawed movies are problematic for both women and men.

  15. They’re creepy unless youre Christian Grey

  16. Not all romantic behavior is “controlling and creepy”, at least not when I do it…even when it’s big and a bit out of proportions – sometimes yes and sometimes no

    Remember this little jewel:

    “ romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.”

    At times it seems that we’re focused on running up the numbers more so than gaining knowledge and understanding.

  17. Light-In-Spanish says:

    Same with women who start cooking to the guy and cleaning their apartment, seems desperate and control freak behavior. Give little teaspoons of interest, then back off a little and crate some mystery.

    works for men and women 🙂

  18. Quadruple A says:

    Well of course you would expect a hip New Yorker who writes stuff that gets picked up by publishers with names like “defenestration” or “nerve” would think that romantic gestures are creepy.

    Is anybody else getting tired of the idea that everything men do is “creepy?”

    • mary macgowan says:

      Let’s give men a chance!

      • Peter von Maidenberg says:

        “Men” as a collective don’t need a chance. Individual men do.

        “Creepy” as a concept may have been stretched beyond meaning by now. It has expanded to cover any male behavior a woman doesn’t quite know what to make of, and is on its way to being a catchall term for different, complicated or unique.

    • mary macgowan says:

      I think the biggest problem with this article is the word “creepy.”

      I also think it’s weird the way the author describes backing off, instantly, when a guy would be enthusiastic on an early date. Like she’d “creep” out the door of the restaurant, horrified.

      • @Mary..

        You would be surprised at the behavior of a lot of women. They are bitching (incessantly) about the paucity of “good” men. They are crying about not going on dates.

        So, when a guy IS interested and they give him a date (often because they don’t have anything else to do), God forbid if he acts “romantic.” Of course, they then call their girlfriends up and talk about how they just went on this date with this “weird and creepy” guy who wanted to enjoy a candlelight dinner at an upscale Italian restaurant…Oh well.

        Now, if he is a handsome hunk or good looking, tall, dark and handsome it is OK. And these very women wonder why so many men just don’t want to be bothered with them anymore. Sex workers and their business plus porn is growing double digit, annually.

        I am not trying to be cynical or sarcastic. But, it am simply reporting news from the front.

    • wellokaythen says:

      Meanwhile, ironically, notice how many romcoms are set in New York….

      • Peter von Maidenberg says:

        …which is explained largely by the fact that Americans who want to write for tv or the movies generally need to be in a few hot spots to get noticed, and they’re better off embracing dominant cultures in both the industry and the region.

    • wellokaythen says:

      Not everything men do is creepy. Only things that are unwelcome by some women and not others, and things from some men and not others, at some times and not others, are creepy. Men’s activities are not universally creepy. There are very sharp distinctions made between creepy and welcome, based on extremely variable and arbitrary criteria.

      For example, the above paragraph, suggesting that there are not always hard and fast rules about “creepiness” is itself creepy in many circumstances. However, if I were much more attractive, that might make a difference in the interpretation of the above paragraph.

      The rule seems to be that a man must know how welcome something is before he does it, while at the same time having the courage to take a leap when he is not sure about the reception. He must rely on his ability to predict the future AND rely on blind faith in the future at the same time. He must be able to make accurate predictions about the future without trying to control events, events which are inherently unpredictable.

      So, the rules of creepiness are pretty clear….

      • Lol Comment of the year. Men, you must be mind-readers, know a woman’s body language better than her, know what will be creepy and what won’t be, know who will be attracted to you, only want sex as much as her. Anything I left out?:P

    • i think it is a young/ish thing.
      it seems the fashion for 15yrs for the cooool to haughtily label things ‘creeepy’. at least men werent called dude’ or ‘dude-bro’ in this piece

      • For small favors we can be grateful. I promised myself, long ago, that I would no longer feel tempted to post Homeless Dan Mustard’s acoustic rendition of “Creep” on pieces like this as long as The Words I Shall Not Write were not used. Sadly I am tempted more often than I not!

        As far as behavior goes, aloof cordiality and civility has worked like a shield for me, for better or worse. It takes a while for the me to open the gaps in my armor but that usually means that I do so at better times than I might if I were to just get all exercised about things at the beginning.

  19. mary macgowan says:

    I’m 58 years old, divorced for 10 years now. There’s something desperate going on with relationships among middle-aged people.

    I’ve had several marriage proposals very early on. Like, on a 2nd date, a 1st date, one month into a relationship, two months into a relationship. Now I suppose I’m a pretty good catch, but I don’t think that’s what it’s about.

    A lot of middle-aged men feel like they don’t have any time to “waste” getting to know a woman. “I’m going to die soon! Let’s fall in love right now! Let’s plan our marriage on our 2nd date!” And, yeah, they want to leap over all that getting-to-know-you and land right in that comfy my-friends-love-your-friends stage.


    • That’d be because men die 5 years earlier than women probably so of course they’d be worried, I would too.

      • mary macgowan says:

        Yeah, well, death is worrisome, isn’t it? (insert smiley face)

        • At that age I’d be happy to have some sort of companionship without pushing for marriage, but that could be more to do with the generation? These days it’s more accepted to live as defactos.

          • mary macgowan says:

            Well, I’m that age and I totally agree with you! Must be a guy thing that you’ll discover when you’re that age? I’d be fine with living together and maybe eventually having some kind of “promise” ceremony with our grown children all around us.

            • Mary,
              That reminds me of a joke I once read. I’ll try not to mangle it. The joke is:
              A study was done to see at what age (by age bracket) men thought a man should marry at:

              age of man response
              17 27
              27 37
              37 47
              47 57
              57 17

              I’m sure I’m not doing it justice, but I think it’s funny that the age keeps getting pushed back until at a certain point the delusion drops and the guy admits he should have married a long time ago.

    • @mary….

      I think studies show that middle-age men re-marry far more frequently than middle-age women. After all, the middle age woman is usually the one who has ended a marriage to start with. (70% of divorces are initiated by the woman).

      So, the divorced woman is not interested in jumping back into the muck so fast. These men are probably lonely and looking for companionship, someone to cook, someone to bring him his eyeglasses he left upstairs……

      As a woman who is 58 and dating, more than likely the men were older? Usually 58 year old men are chasing after 30-40 year old women….Just saying.

      I am 50, but I much prefer women my age or no more than 5-7 years younger. I don’t date per se. I just have FWB arrangements.

  20. Richard Aubrey says:

    When I was something less than one third my current age, I was thick as a brick and oblivious as all hell.
    Turned out that was ‘way more effective than romantic gestures. Problem is, I didn’t notice that, either, until twenty years later.
    Not sure how that works, but apparently being the other end of the spectrum from the premature grand gesture has its good points.
    Anybody want to explain that? I’m looking for some believable business for a fictional character.

    • Haha, I recognize myself at 17-19 in that description. I got rid of my geeky glasses and got contacts and went to a larger high school where a lot of people didn’t know me. I was oblivious to it at the time, but apparently quite a few girls found me “interesting”. I much later learned that I was viewed as aloof, mysterious and unattainable (and possibly gay – although I didn’t fit with the gay stereotype prevalent at that time and place – I was more of a nerd). A couple of the more forward girls tried to hit on me, but when that happened it became quickly painfully obvious that there was nothing mysterious and dark about me, I was simply very shy, an introvert and had internalized so much of the anti-rape materials I had been exposed to that I was completely unable to make any physical move on a girl in fear of it being unwanted and hence a violation of her.

      So my guess is that they thought you were mysterious and somewhat unattainable and hence they wanted you.

  21. Here’s a better idea, women, start hitting on men n letting us sit back for a while 😛

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Here’s a better idea, women, start hitting on men n letting us sit back for a while

      LOL, if only!

      I wouldn’t count on it. Women seem to enjoy their position within the world of dating/courtship.

  22. where are all these overly romantic guys? I’ve never met one. Maybe I don’t inspire romantic gestures?

    • @Sarah….

      We are afraid of being labeled as “creepy.” It is “old fashioned.” Why look at Leia’s comment above. It is typical. Very very typical.

      Well, I am “old school” so I do as I please. Damn the torpedoes.

  23. “Love-bombing” is creepy…all the over-the-top stuff that pours out of someone’s mouth is just that…pure froth….

    Just back up…and keep your distance…!

  24. Great destruction of the tired trope (if she doesn’t love you yet, double down).

    I didn’t really start thinking about this until I saw a re-run of the moving romancing the stone. In that movie the male lead treats the female lead horribly. He doesn’t spare any punches because she’s a woman (starting from the very first moment when he charges her an exhorbitant fee to get her out of the jungle).

    The fact that this movie made women swoon puzzled me, until I figured it out.

    #1 women don’t necessarily like bad guys, but guys who have the self esteem to tell a woman “hells no!”

    #2 despite being dastardly (even putting the female lead & her sister at risk when he decides to go for the treasure, making the map valueless for the turn in to the bad guy), at least the male lead treats her just like he treats everybody else. This makes her a person to be engaged with (even if he is conning her through most of the movie, but it is suggested that the male lead cons everybody so he is giving her the same respect he gives everybody–none), rather than a cardboard cutout of a princess in a castle to be won.

    There is also a little bit of the female role reversal equivalent to the “nice guy wins pretty girl in the end” with Romancing the Stones’s theme of “she snared the devilish rogue into marriage” theme.

    • FlyingKal says:

      I remember seeing that movie, and thinking that he treated her just like he would anybody else, above all was mostly refreshing. I don’t recall that much swooning over this particular movie, either.

      Also, I didn’t reflect to much about the “why” they got together in the end. I guess it was just par for the course for any movie.

  25. wellokaythen says:

    You have to build up to the grand gesture, you can’t just start with the grand gesture. Doing something too big too soon makes you look impatient, and impatience early in a relationship is a big turn-off for a lot of women. (In my limited experience, and definitely learned the hard way.) It tends to come across as “Do you love me now? How about now? How about now? How about now?”

    A big romantic production looks like an act of bravery, but in some ways it may be the opposite. Sometimes men go over the top because deep down we don’t want the person to have a chance to say no. Overwhelm her with shock and awe and she has to like it, we think. Propose to her via the Jumbotron at the stadium – she has to say yes with all those people watching, right?

    In terms of romantic expressions, the size is not as important as the depth. (No, that is not a penis joke.) The most meaningful is the most personalized. The really big gestures tend to be less personal and more cliché. The big ones tend to look like something you could do for any woman, not specifically her. They send the message “You’re the only one for me, [insert name here].” I remember buying a birthday card for a woman I had just met in a noisy club. I wrote her name in really big letters across the envelope. Turns out I misheard her name with all the noise around us, and the name I put on the card was not her name. Oops. Romantic fail.


  1. […] Read more: Ignore the Movies: ‘Romantic’ Gestures Are Creepy […]

Speak Your Mind